Isaiah 52:13-53: whatever..

[Rhiannon]

The challenge begins with proving Jesus not to be divine. Going on from that every argument has to start from 'Jesus was human. What happens to humans?' Otherwise there's no sensible argument to be made at all.

[Maeght]

The challenge begins with proving Jesus not to be divine. Going on from that every argument has to start from 'Jesus was human. What happens to humans?' Otherwise there's no sensible argument to be made at all.

Absolutely.

[Gordon]

Given the fairly easy time Christianity has had over the centuries (apart from fighting amongst themselves) in portraying its core beliefs as facts, which is due in part to them having the social and political influence to enforce their agenda, I'd say that it is essential in these more enlightened times to counter the myths of Christianity for as long as organised Christianity seeks to promote these in the public arena.

Therefore, it is quite reasonable to point out the fallacious nature of the arguments Christianity makes to justify itself, as is exemplified by the likes of Hope and Alan Burns, and press them regarding what methods they can appropriately use to confirm the supernatural - and it is clear they don't have any and depend instead on a set of logical fallacies.

If they kept it to themselves then fine: but they don't.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given the fairly easy time Christianity has had over the centuries (apart from fighting amongst themselves) in portraying its core beliefs as facts, which is due in part to them having the social and political influence to enforce their agenda, I'd say that it is essential in these more enlightened times to counter the myths of Christianity for as long as organised Christianity seeks to promote these in the public arena.

Therefore, it is quite reasonable to point out the fallacious nature of the arguments Christianity makes to justify itself, as is exemplified by the likes of Hope and Alan Burns, and press them regarding what methods they can appropriately use to confirm the supernatural - and it is clear they don't have any and depend instead on a set of logical fallacies.

If they kept it to themselves then fine: but they don't.

Shamanically waving words like fallacious again Gordon?

Do you know what it means or do you just like the feeling it makes as you roll it round your mouth?

[Gordon]

Shamanically waving words like fallacious again Gordon?

Do you know what it means or do you just like the feeling it makes as you roll it round your mouth?

I do indeed know what it means, Vlad: some of the theists here provide textbook examples on an almost daily basis.

[Hope]

I do indeed know what it means, Vlad: some of the theists here provide textbook examples on an almost daily basis.

So, they are not much different to some of the atheists, then, Gordon.

[Hope]

Given the fairly easy time Christianity has had over the centuries (apart from fighting amongst themselves) in portraying its core beliefs as facts, which is due in part to them having the social and political influence to enforce their agenda, I'd say that it is essential in these more enlightened times to counter the myths of Christianity for as long as organised Christianity seeks to promote these in the public arena.

So, what if it turns out that they aren't myth, but truth?  Aren't you then denying millions of individuals access to the truth?

If they kept it to themselves then fine: but they don't.

You could argue that if atheists kept their thinking to themselves 'then fine' as well.

[Gordon]

So, what if it turns out that they aren't myth, but truth?  Aren't you then denying millions of individuals access to the truth?

Then demonstrate it using an appropriate methodology. 

You could argue that if atheists kept their thinking to themselves 'then fine' as well.

You could, but I'm not - rebutting your arguments is perfectly reasonable for as long as you make claims in the public arena: keep them to yourselves and there is nothing to rebutt. Problem is you can't stop yourselves from proselytising.

[Shaker]

So, they are not much different to some of the atheists, then, Gordon.

Not this "They do the same thing/are just as bad" shite again. This is the one you wheel out when you're even more bereft of ideas than usual - probably the definitive example of this being your assertion that I've not only used the negative proof fallacy at all but even more so than you have*. Evidence provided despite repeated requests in the nearly six months since then = zilch.

We all know that you're never, ever going to provide a scrap of substantiation or backup for this assertion, so why bother doing it? Oh I forgot - I'm talking to the man who has been told umpteen times why the negative proof fallacy is a type of defective reasoning and still does it almost daily.

* http://goo.gl/XykRzs

[Shaker]

Then demonstrate it using an appropriate methodology.

Oh my sides!

[Shaker]

You could, but I'm not - rebutting your arguments is perfectly reasonable for as long as you make claims in the public arena

... and in this case demand, and get, special privileges for the same.

[Shaker]

So, what if it turns out that they aren't myth, but truth?

And how would that 'turn out' to be the case? How would one know?

[Rhiannon]

And how would that 'turn out' to be the case? How would one know?

I really think we'd know by now to be fair.

[Owlswing]

. . . or do you just like the feeling it makes as you roll it round your mouth?

What like your never-ending list of -isms?

[Maeght]

Given the fairly easy time Christianity has had over the centuries (apart from fighting amongst themselves) in portraying its core beliefs as facts, which is due in part to them having the social and political influence to enforce their agenda, I'd say that it is essential in these more enlightened times to counter the myths of Christianity for as long as organised Christianity seeks to promote these in the public arena.

Therefore, it is quite reasonable to point out the fallacious nature of the arguments Christianity makes to justify itself, as is exemplified by the likes of Hope and Alan Burns, and press them regarding what methods they can appropriately use to confirm the supernatural - and it is clear they don't have any and depend instead on a set of logical fallacies.

If they kept it to themselves then fine: but they don't.

I seem to be having to repeat myself. My point is not that the arguments put forward by Christians shouldn't be challenged. My point is that saying to Christians that Jesus couldn't rise from the dead because humans don't normally do this makes no sense as an argument since Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God and not like other humans.

[Owlswing]

I seem to be having to repeat myself. My point is not that the arguments put forward by Christians shouldn't be challenged. My point is that saying to Christians that Jesus couldn't rise from the dead because humans don't normally do this makes no sense as an argument since Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God and not like other humans.

My point is that saying to non-Christians that Jesus could rise from the dead because they believe Jesus was the Son of God and not like other humans makes no sense as an argument since non-Christians believe Jesus was like other humans.

[jeremyp]

My point is that saying to Christians that Jesus couldn't rise from the dead because humans don't normally do this makes no sense as an argument since Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God and not like other humans.

But, if they are having an argument with non Christians, that's not an argument they can use.

This is particularly true of Christians like William Lane Craig who use the death and resurrection of Christ as an argument for the existence of God.

[Maeght]

My point is that saying to non-Christians that Jesus could rise from the dead because they believe Jesus was the Son of God and not like other humans makes no sense as an argument since non-Christians believe Jesus was like other humans.

Yes, a different point and quite right. I accept your point. Do you accept mine?

[Maeght]

But, if they are having an argument with non Christians, that's not an argument they can use.

This is particularly true of Christians like William Lane Craig who use the death and resurrection of Christ as an argument for the existence of God.

Again, a different point and quite right. I accept that. Do you accept my point?

[floo]

Thanks, Young Lady!

WOW! How much do you want to borrow?

[Hope]

But, if they are having an argument with non Christians, that's not an argument they can use.

jeremy, I think that it is an argument that is perfectly valid - the non-Christians have somehow got to show evidence that the understanding is false.

[Maeght]

jeremy, I think that it is an argument that is perfectly valid - the non-Christians have somehow got to show evidence that the understanding is false.

Not really. It is a matter of personal belief, or lack of belief, so isn't a valid argument to use. If a Christian says something is true because Jesus is divine then the Christian has to show that to be true or else the argument is invalid.

[Hope]

And how would that 'turn out' to be the case? How would one know?

Well, one way would be for a skeleton that can be positively proved to have been that of Jesus to be discovered (there will no doubt be plenty of Jews who trace their ancestry back to Joseph and Mary thus providing a source of her DNA).  Another would be the discovery or release of an official Jewish document of the time attesting to the events surrounding the crucifixion of this clearly dangerous man (after all, which other 'messiah' was initially arrested by the Jews, found guilty and then handed over to the Romans?) and the long-term disposal of his body.

In other words, there are ways in which the documentary evidence for the resurrection story could be categorically shown to be false.

[Gordon]

jeremy, I think that it is an argument that is perfectly valid - the non-Christians have somehow got to show evidence that the understanding is false.

Nope - you're back to the negative proof fallacy again.

Pointing out that in the absence of an appropriate method and related evidence that Jesus 'was divine' is a fallacious assertion is sufficient as a rebuttal. The burden of proof remains yours no matter how often you try to offload it.

[jeremyp]

jeremy, I think that it is an argument that is perfectly valid

No it isn't. Non Christians do not accept special magic explanations. If you want to convince us that Jesus could have resurrected because he was "special", you first need to show that he was special.

the non-Christians have somehow got to show evidence that the understanding is false.

No we don't. You are the one making the argument, you show it to be true.